online scams

regrets:-actors-who-sold-ai-avatars-stuck-in-black-mirror-esque-dystopia

Regrets: Actors who sold AI avatars stuck in Black Mirror-esque dystopia

In a Black Mirror-esque turn, some cash-strapped actors who didn’t fully understand the consequences are regretting selling their likenesses to be used in AI videos that they consider embarrassing, damaging, or harmful, AFP reported.

Among them is a 29-year-old New York-based actor, Adam Coy, who licensed rights to his face and voice to a company called MCM for one year for $1,000 without thinking, “am I crossing a line by doing this?” His partner’s mother later found videos where he appeared as a doomsayer predicting disasters, he told the AFP.

South Korean actor Simon Lee’s AI likeness was similarly used to spook naïve Internet users but in a potentially more harmful way. He told the AFP that he was “stunned” to find his AI avatar promoting “questionable health cures on TikTok and Instagram,” feeling ashamed to have his face linked to obvious scams.

As AI avatar technology improves, the temptation to license likenesses will likely grow. One of the most successful companies that’s recruiting AI avatars, UK-based Synthesia, doubled its valuation to $2.1 billion in January, CNBC reported. And just last week, Synthesia struck a $2 billion deal with Shutterstock that will make its AI avatars more human-like, The Guardian reported.

To ensure that actors are incentivized to license their likenesses, Synthesia also recently launched an equity fund. According to the company, actors behind the most popular AI avatars or featured in Synthesia marketing campaigns will be granted options in “a pool of our company shares” worth $1 million.

“These actors will be part of the program for up to four years, during which their equity awards will vest monthly,” Synthesia said.

For actors, selling their AI likeness seems quick and painless—and perhaps increasingly more lucrative. All they have to do is show up and make a bunch of different facial expressions in front of a green screen, then collect their checks. But Alyssa Malchiodi, a lawyer who has advocated on behalf of actors, told the AFP that “the clients I’ve worked with didn’t fully understand what they were agreeing to at the time,” blindly signing contracts with “clauses considered abusive,” even sometimes granting “worldwide, unlimited, irrevocable exploitation, with no right of withdrawal.”

Regrets: Actors who sold AI avatars stuck in Black Mirror-esque dystopia Read More »

google-has-no-duty-to-refund-gift-card-scam-victims,-judge-finds

Google has no duty to refund gift card scam victims, judge finds

But Freeman ruled that “May suffered economic harm because of third-party scammers’ fraudulent inducement, not Google’s omission or misrepresentation.”

Additionally, May failed to show that Google had any duty to refund customers after Google cited Target and Walmart policies to show that it’s common to refuse refunds.

Scam victims did not use gift card “as designed”

Freeman mostly sided with Google, deciding that the company engaged in no unfair practices, while noting that May had not used the gift cards “in their designed way.” The judge also agreed with Google that May’s funds were not considered stolen at the time she purchased the gift cards, because May still controlled the funds at that point in time.

Additionally, May’s attempt to argue that Google has the technology to detect scams failed, Freeman wrote, because May couldn’t prove that Google deployed that technology when her particular scam purchases were made. Even after May argued that she reported the theft to Google, Freeman wrote, May’s complaint failed because “there is no allegation that Google had a duty to investigate her report.”

Ultimately, May’s complaint “identifies no public policy suggesting Google has a duty to refund the scammed victims or that the harm of Google’s conduct outweighs any benefits,” Freeman concluded.

In her order, Freeman provided leave to amend some claims in the next 45 days, but Ars could not immediately reach May’s lawyer to confirm if the complaint would likely be amended. However, the judge notably dismissed a claim seeking triple damages because May’s complaint “failed to show a likelihood that May will be a victim of gift card scams again given her awareness of such scams,” which may deflate May’s interests to amend.

That particular part of the ruling may be especially frustrating for May, whose complaint was sparked by a claim that she never would have been victimized if Google had provided adequate warnings of scams.

Google did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Google has no duty to refund gift card scam victims, judge finds Read More »